I suspect being a branded a one-term loser will do Trump's health more harm than Covid-19 will.
What happens after a Biden landslide though? Will Trump's supporters simply refuse to believe the result and foster another "stabbed in the back" myth or will the spell finally be broken? Does the GOP establishment take back control of the party or does Trumpism simply regroup under a more competent leader?
Simply not being Trump will only get Biden so far. What happens when the realisation dawns that America's problems haven't gone away and the country is as divided as ever? Will his health hold up for four years? I expect once the honeymoon period ends AOC will turn on the Democratic establishment pretty quickly.
I see your hero has abstained again on some key votes at Westminster. Does he have view on anything, or does just criticise the government with the benefit of hindsight.
Presumably he should have voted against in your mind
Or for.
Does he literally have no opinion on this? Is he incapable of getting off the fence?
PB Tories should vent themselves at their own government, not at the Opposition. They voted for these chumps.
Trump to win, back at 3.05 Rep to win, lay at 2.98
I'd urge everyone to use Betdaq, only 2% commission even for big hitters.
Betfair also has 2% commission for those willing to forego some bonuses. Check your rate (and change it if necessary) at: My Account > My Betfair Account > Promotions & Rewards > My Betfair Rewards.
I suspect being a branded a one-term loser will do Trump's health more harm than Covid-19 will.
What happens after a Biden landslide though? Will Trump's supporters simply refuse to believe the result and foster another "stabbed in the back" myth or will the spell finally be broken? Does the GOP establishment take back control of the party or does Trumpism simply regroup under a more competent leader?
Simply not being Trump will only get Biden so far. What happens when the realisation dawns that America's problems haven't gone away and the country is as divided as ever? Will his health hold up for four years? I expect once the honeymoon period ends AOC will turn on the Democratic establishment pretty quickly.
AOC isn't particularly influential: IIRC her and her PAC endorsed 17 candidates for Congress in the Primaries this year, and only three of them won. (And those three were in districts where they are unlikely to win in the general.)
In Sweden the antibody % is half in older people compared to working age. In Spain (and presumably UK) they figures are equal. Younger people have been allowed to build up immunity by getting on with their lives, albeit with some restrictions such as no standing at the bar.
See Unherd's latest lockdown interview.
Maybe it wouldn't work in UK because we don't obey common sense rules like the Swedes, but we should be discussing it more widely.
If people aren't obeying the (Broad farce of) lockdown, they won't obey "common sense".
I see your hero has abstained again on some key votes at Westminster. Does he have view on anything, or does just criticise the government with the benefit of hindsight.
Presumably he should have voted against in your mind
Or for.
Does he literally have no opinion on this? Is he incapable of getting off the fence?
PB Tories should vent themselves at their own government, not at the Opposition. They voted for these chumps.
Well at least they expressed a view and voted, which is apparently more than Sir Keir seems to do.
Keep it coming Donald. You are doing great under these new meds.
If Trump carries on like this, he won't just lose, it will be like the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu.
I f*cking hope so.
I wasn't going to stay up all night as I'm getting on a bit and when I did it four years ago I felt unwell for two solid days afterwards.
But...
Ah you need to plan your week.
Early night Sunday.
Work on Monday, go to bed at 8pm.
Wake later than usual on Tuesday, say 9am, go to bed at 3.30pm, set alarm for 8.30pm, and then you call pull an all nighter without feeling it for the rest of the week.
Oh and take Wednesday off from work.
Worst are general elections for me. Especially since the fiasco of 2017
7am-9pm - watch the weather in a petrified state, hoping your voters will turn out, worrying at the number of scowls you get whilst telling, trying to keep your activists from fretting as much as you are.
9pm-10pm - eat whilst not looking at the clock every. bloody. minute - until the exit poll
11pm-onwards - at the count. Ours are always terminally slow, despite pretty much knowing the result after exit poll and first few ballot boxes have been opened
3am - not quite understanding why the count still hasn't finished
4am - not quite understanding why, when the counting has clearly finished, there hasn't been a declaration
4.30am - rush to declaration spot, after it becomes obvious all local declarations will be happening at once
5am - 8am. Home. After celebratory handshakes. Blissful period where you're waiting to fall asleep whilst the final few results come in. Decide you're going to wait to x constituency to be declared. Have a quick celebratory tipple.
8.01am. Fall asleep after tipple finished, 3 minutes before x constituency is declared
Midday. Wake up to find txts and missed calls from everyone involved in the campaign, and everyone who wasn't involved but wants to make you think they were, so messages congrats too.
That West Wing episode where Josh always goes a bit loopy on election day is too close for comfort, for me.
Trump to win, back at 3.05 Rep to win, lay at 2.98
I'd urge everyone to use Betdaq, only 2% commission even for big hitters.
Betfair also has 2% commission for those willing to forego some bonuses. Check your rate (and change it if necessary) at: My Account > My Betfair Account > Promotions & Rewards > My Betfair Rewards.
Not if you're profitable it doesn't
Premium Charges
Ah yes; Aren't premium charges more of a concern for traders rather than backers or layers, or has, like income tax, their scope increased?
Trump to win, back at 3.05 Rep to win, lay at 2.98
I'd urge everyone to use Betdaq, only 2% commission even for big hitters.
Betfair also has 2% commission for those willing to forego some bonuses. Check your rate (and change it if necessary) at: My Account > My Betfair Account > Promotions & Rewards > My Betfair Rewards.
Not if you're profitable it doesn't
Premium Charges
Ah yes; Aren't premium charges more of a concern for traders rather than backers or layers, or has, like income tax, their scope increased?
In Sweden the antibody % is half in older people compared to working age. In Spain (and presumably UK) they figures are equal. Younger people have been allowed to build up immunity by getting on with their lives, albeit with some restrictions such as no standing at the bar.
See Unherd's latest lockdown interview.
Maybe it wouldn't work in UK because we don't obey common sense rules like the Swedes, but we should be discussing it more widely.
Discussing it more widely? Apart from the USA and Brazil I feel like I've heard about no other country in the world other than Sweden for months.
I see your hero has abstained again on some key votes at Westminster. Does he have view on anything, or does just criticise the government with the benefit of hindsight.
Presumably he should have voted against in your mind
Or for.
Does he literally have no opinion on this? Is he incapable of getting off the fence?
PB Tories should vent themselves at their own government, not at the Opposition. They voted for these chumps.
At least the Government is trying.
I have more respect for people doing what they think is right during a crisis, even if I disagree, than someone who is too petrified to make any decisions at all until they have Hindsight.
The transition period doesn't bear thinking about.
While hoping, if he loses, that he cannot do that much damage in that period, for the first time I can really see the appeal of it. No one likes to lose an election of course, but for someone like Trump, who blusters and bullies his way to success again and again, who hates to be thought of as weak in anything and has incredibly thin skin, being in office as a known loser for months would be terrific punishment.
I see your hero has abstained again on some key votes at Westminster. Does he have view on anything, or does just criticise the government with the benefit of hindsight.
Presumably he should have voted against in your mind
Or for.
Does he literally have no opinion on this? Is he incapable of getting off the fence?
PB Tories should vent themselves at their own government, not at the Opposition. They voted for these chumps.
Well at least they expressed a view and voted, which is apparently more than Sir Keir seems to do.
I think the dishonest thing about Labour's position is that they are busy criticising in England & Scotland the very same actions over which they are presiding in Wales.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Went into the office today for the first time since March to clear my desk as the company prepares to vacate offices. Drove straight into town and parked at StPancras. There was very little congestion.
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about. Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
In Sweden the antibody % is half in older people compared to working age. In Spain (and presumably UK) they figures are equal. Younger people have been allowed to build up immunity by getting on with their lives, albeit with some restrictions such as no standing at the bar.
See Unherd's latest lockdown interview.
Maybe it wouldn't work in UK because we don't obey common sense rules like the Swedes, but we should be discussing it more widely.
Discussing it more widely? Apart from the USA and Brazil I feel like I've heard about no other country in the world other than Sweden for months.
And often inaccurately, as people project their own fantasy covid policies. Post 16 education is online there for example, working from home a common response etc, and the economic slump much the same as everywhere else.
Trump to win, back at 3.05 Rep to win, lay at 2.98
I'd urge everyone to use Betdaq, only 2% commission even for big hitters.
Betfair also has 2% commission for those willing to forego some bonuses. Check your rate (and change it if necessary) at: My Account > My Betfair Account > Promotions & Rewards > My Betfair Rewards.
Not if you're profitable it doesn't
Premium Charges
Ah yes; Aren't premium charges more of a concern for traders rather than backers or layers, or has, like income tax, their scope increased?
They're a concern if you win.
You may have put your finger on where I am going wrong
"The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. "
As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
It doesn't really matter whether it's called Risk Segmentation, Focused Protection, A Shield of Maximum Safekeeping, or A Potion of Wishful Security, it's still magical thinking.
Certainly we should try very hard to protect the vulnerable. We didn't do that so well in the first wave, nor did a number of other countries. But part of that protection lies in reducing virus prevalence in the population as a whole.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Of course you should bother, just think of the kudos you'll get if you turn out to be right.
Personally I just get overloaded by data with american elections so just go on my gut, which is unhelpful, but people seem to be able to use the data to make any argument anyway.
The one about anecdotes is interesting though, because I had noted that John Oliver made a crack about Biden's get out the vote operation on his show on Sunday. Might mean nothing, he certainly is not impartial and I get the impression no fan of Biden, but I don't discount the possibility things might still trip up.
As for your 2, I presume David feels the state polls are the ones which are more likely to be bogus.
I see your hero has abstained again on some key votes at Westminster. Does he have view on anything, or does just criticise the government with the benefit of hindsight.
Presumably he should have voted against in your mind
Or for.
Does he literally have no opinion on this? Is he incapable of getting off the fence?
PB Tories should vent themselves at their own government, not at the Opposition. They voted for these chumps.
Well at least they expressed a view and voted, which is apparently more than Sir Keir seems to do.
He did express the view yesterday that we need a road map to show that there is light at the end of the tunnel. A line so characteristically dreary, you'd think Spitting Image had written it for him.
In Sweden the antibody % is half in older people compared to working age. In Spain (and presumably UK) they figures are equal. Younger people have been allowed to build up immunity by getting on with their lives, albeit with some restrictions such as no standing at the bar.
See Unherd's latest lockdown interview.
Maybe it wouldn't work in UK because we don't obey common sense rules like the Swedes, but we should be discussing it more widely.
Discussing it more widely? Apart from the USA and Brazil I feel like I've heard about no other country in the world other than Sweden for months.
And often inaccurately, as people project their own fantasy covid policies. Post 16 education is online there for example, working from home a common response etc, and the economic slump much the same as everywhere else.
And they have a system of sickness benefits which enable anyone who shows symptoms to self isolate without much personal economic cost.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
Has anyone considered the possibility that an increase in Republican voter registration might be disgruntled Republicans who were intending to sit on their hands. But have ultimately decided that they've had enough, and absolutely have to make sure that they get Trump out of office?
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
Did you follow the link from the WSJ to the source papers? They have more detail.
Actuaries have their own mathematics, but my understanding would be that those who didn't die in a plane crash would actuarily gain life expectancy, albeit an infestessimal amount.
Went into the office today for the first time since March to clear my desk as the company prepares to vacate offices. Drove straight into town and parked at StPancras. There was very little congestion.
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about. Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I agree. I think the economic impact of Covid will be much worse than many are assuming and has yet to hit.
If Sunak thinks that balancing the books in a major recession, possibly a depression, is the way to go, he’s a bigger fool than I take him for - and I am not, like @stodge, a fan.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Presumably it tells you that those who died were not solely the extremely old who were likely to die within the year of something else anyway -- in that extreme case the reduction in lifespan would be much smaller. Since there definitely were quite a lot of deaths among that group there must also be a lot of deaths among relatively healthy people who would otherwise have expected a couple more decades, to balance the average out.
They are not official but give you a good idea of what is happening in England.
The 'Top 160' embedded table shows Nottingham at 6 on 456. This is 456 cases per 100,000 people taken over the last 7 days, which appears to be the 'gold standard' measure in this respect.
I see your hero has abstained again on some key votes at Westminster. Does he have view on anything, or does just criticise the government with the benefit of hindsight.
Presumably he should have voted against in your mind
Or for.
Does he literally have no opinion on this? Is he incapable of getting off the fence?
PB Tories should vent themselves at their own government, not at the Opposition. They voted for these chumps.
Well at least they expressed a view and voted, which is apparently more than Sir Keir seems to do.
He did express the view yesterday that we need a road map to show that there is light at the end of the tunnel. A line so characteristically dreary, you'd think Spitting Image had written it for him.
I think we could do with a road map IF it had targets. Something like: we do X, if X works then Y falls to Z by this date. At the moment we seem to be doing stuff, mostly ineffective, with no guidance as to what we should consider success or failure. That means we (the public) can't evaluate what they (the government) are doing, and so we stick at stuff that perhaps we ought to have given up on. At the moment questions about anything that isn't working well seem to be answered with do it more, or do it faster, when maybe we ought to be doing something else.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
An 80 year old in a first world country has a life expectancy of 10 years, so reduces her life expectancy by that amount, by dying of *anything*. Presumably the point is that covid victims are reducing their life expectancy by *only* that amount, unlike a 30 year old dying of cancer and losing 50 years. Which you would expect anyway, because covid victims tend to be old.
They are not official but give you a good idea of what is happening in England.
The 'Top 160' embedded table shows Nottingham at 6 on 456. This is 456 cases per 100,000 people taken over the last 7 days, which appears to be the 'gold standard' measure in this respect.
Where on earth are BBC news getting their per 100K numbers for Nottingham? Saying 400 per 100k.
The data shows 235 cases for a city of 300K people.
Am I missing something?
Do the BBC mean 400/100k per week ?
Have you noticed Nottingham is getting more cases than the rest of Nottinghamshire put together ?
Students.
I suspect some people aren't going to be happy at further restrictions caused by infections among asymptomatic students in a different part of the city.
Fox jr 2 is enjoying his lectures being online as he can pause and rewind if he doesn't quite catch something. The seminars are a bit more problematic as there are always technical issues, and much harder for discussions to flow.
Not perfect, but what were the alternatives? Sitting on my sofa playing X box in his underpants for a year, only to find covid is still around? It is not a good year for a gap year with no work or travel.
Went into the office today for the first time since March to clear my desk as the company prepares to vacate offices. Drove straight into town and parked at StPancras. There was very little congestion.
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about. Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I agree. I think the economic impact of Covid will be much worse than many are assuming and has yet to hit.
If Sunak thinks that balancing the books in a major recession, possibly a depression, is the way to go, he’s a bigger fool than I take him for - and I am not, like @stodge, a fan.
What else could Sunak say or do? His only choice is to paint a thin veneer over the problem and maintain confidence for a little longer in the hope something rescues him.
Went into the office today for the first time since March to clear my desk as the company prepares to vacate offices. Drove straight into town and parked at StPancras. There was very little congestion.
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about. Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I agree. I think the economic impact of Covid will be much worse than many are assuming and has yet to hit.
If Sunak thinks that balancing the books in a major recession, possibly a depression, is the way to go, he’s a bigger fool than I take him for - and I am not, like @stodge, a fan.
What else could Sunak say or do? His only choice is to paint a thin veneer over the problem and maintain confidence for a little longer in the hope something rescues him.
They are not official but give you a good idea of what is happening in England.
The 'Top 160' embedded table shows Nottingham at 6 on 456. This is 456 cases per 100,000 people taken over the last 7 days, which appears to be the 'gold standard' measure in this respect.
Still not sure why Warrington but not Manchester has been chosen to be under the same restrictions as Liverpool and Newcastle, besides its proximity to Liverpool. #31 in that list, below the whole of Greater Manchester, Wigan etc.
Sunak does think we should cut our way out of a recession, it's what his banking experience will tell him.
He's overseeing Boris Johnson's housing policy, which is what created the GFC in the first place and he was busy shorting housing bonds at the time, profiting off of millions losing their jobs
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
This is a smart observation. I don't know what the "average life expectancy at death" is for the UK, but it's clearly going to be a number significantly greater than zero!
The number is still meaningful, though, if we think of the road not taken. "But for COVID" those who died would have had an average of 10 years more, say. Just like your hypothetical plane journey cost you 21 years of average life. One could also say that catching COVID costs (making up a number) 0.1 years of average life expectancy, compared with not catching it. This is a reasonable way to quantify the (non-economic) cost of binary events, comparing the consequence of the event against the consequences of the opposite, but I agree with you that it's quite counterintuitive.
I suspect being a branded a one-term loser will do Trump's health more harm than Covid-19 will.
What happens after a Biden landslide though? Will Trump's supporters simply refuse to believe the result and foster another "stabbed in the back" myth or will the spell finally be broken? Does the GOP establishment take back control of the party or does Trumpism simply regroup under a more competent leader?
Simply not being Trump will only get Biden so far. What happens when the realisation dawns that America's problems haven't gone away and the country is as divided as ever? Will his health hold up for four years? I expect once the honeymoon period ends AOC will turn on the Democratic establishment pretty quickly.
AOC isn't particularly influential: IIRC her and her PAC endorsed 17 candidates for Congress in the Primaries this year, and only three of them won. (And those three were in districts where they are unlikely to win in the general.)
When Biden hits the mid-term slump AOC et al will claim its because he isn't being radical enough. People claim her proposal of Sanders at the Democratic convention was a mere procedural formality but it still gave her enough distance from Biden to be able to turn fire on him at a later date.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Presumably it tells you that those who died were not solely the extremely old who were likely to die within the year of something else anyway -- in that extreme case the reduction in lifespan would be much smaller. Since there definitely were quite a lot of deaths among that group there must also be a lot of deaths among relatively healthy people who would otherwise have expected a couple more decades, to balance the average out.
There also needs to be understanding that life expectancy at any age is not the same as life expectancy at birth. For example a British male may have a life expectancy of 82 years at birth, but a life expectancy of 10 years at age 77 Hence the latter loses 10 Actuarial years if he dies at 77 from Covid.
Keep it coming Donald. You are doing great under these new meds.
If Trump carries on like this, he won't just lose, it will be like the fall of Nicolae Ceaușescu.
I f*cking hope so.
I wasn't going to stay up all night as I'm getting on a bit and when I did it four years ago I felt unwell for two solid days afterwards.
But...
Ah you need to plan your week.
Early night Sunday.
Work on Monday, go to bed at 8pm.
Wake later than usual on Tuesday, say 9am, go to bed at 3.30pm, set alarm for 8.30pm, and then you call pull an all nighter without feeling it for the rest of the week.
Oh and take Wednesday off from work.
Worst are general elections for me. Especially since the fiasco of 2017
7am-9pm - watch the weather in a petrified state, hoping your voters will turn out, worrying at the number of scowls you get whilst telling, trying to keep your activists from fretting as much as you are.
9pm-10pm - eat whilst not looking at the clock every. bloody. minute - until the exit poll
11pm-onwards - at the count. Ours are always terminally slow, despite pretty much knowing the result after exit poll and first few ballot boxes have been opened
3am - not quite understanding why the count still hasn't finished
4am - not quite understanding why, when the counting has clearly finished, there hasn't been a declaration
4.30am - rush to declaration spot, after it becomes obvious all local declarations will be happening at once
5am - 8am. Home. After celebratory handshakes. Blissful period where you're waiting to fall asleep whilst the final few results come in. Decide you're going to wait to x constituency to be declared. Have a quick celebratory tipple.
8.01am. Fall asleep after tipple finished, 3 minutes before x constituency is declared
Midday. Wake up to find txts and missed calls from everyone involved in the campaign, and everyone who wasn't involved but wants to make you think they were, so messages congrats too.
That West Wing episode where Josh always goes a bit loopy on election day is too close for comfort, for me.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
This is a smart observation. I don't know what the "average life expectancy at death" is for the UK, but it's clearly going to be a number significantly greater than zero!
The number is still meaningful, though, if we think of the road not taken. "But for COVID" those who died would have had an average of 10 years more, say. Just like your hypothetical plane journey cost you 21 years of average life. One could also say that catching COVID costs (making up a number) 0.1 years of average life expectancy, compared with not catching it. This is a reasonable way to quantify the (non-economic) cost of binary events, comparing the consequence of the event against the consequences of the opposite, but I agree with you that it's quite counterintuitive.
--AS
Surely one's "average life expectancy at death" is precisely zero?
I suspect being a branded a one-term loser will do Trump's health more harm than Covid-19 will.
What happens after a Biden landslide though? Will Trump's supporters simply refuse to believe the result and foster another "stabbed in the back" myth or will the spell finally be broken? Does the GOP establishment take back control of the party or does Trumpism simply regroup under a more competent leader?
Simply not being Trump will only get Biden so far. What happens when the realisation dawns that America's problems haven't gone away and the country is as divided as ever? Will his health hold up for four years? I expect once the honeymoon period ends AOC will turn on the Democratic establishment pretty quickly.
AOC isn't particularly influential: IIRC her and her PAC endorsed 17 candidates for Congress in the Primaries this year, and only three of them won. (And those three were in districts where they are unlikely to win in the general.)
When Biden hits the mid-term slump AOC et al will claim its because he isn't being radical enough. People claim her proposal of Sanders at the Democratic convention was a mere procedural formality but it still gave her enough distance from Biden to be able to turn fire on him at a later date.
Yes, won't normal politics be something to look forward too?
I suspect being a branded a one-term loser will do Trump's health more harm than Covid-19 will.
What happens after a Biden landslide though? Will Trump's supporters simply refuse to believe the result and foster another "stabbed in the back" myth or will the spell finally be broken? Does the GOP establishment take back control of the party or does Trumpism simply regroup under a more competent leader?
Simply not being Trump will only get Biden so far. What happens when the realisation dawns that America's problems haven't gone away and the country is as divided as ever? Will his health hold up for four years? I expect once the honeymoon period ends AOC will turn on the Democratic establishment pretty quickly.
AOC isn't particularly influential: IIRC her and her PAC endorsed 17 candidates for Congress in the Primaries this year, and only three of them won. (And those three were in districts where they are unlikely to win in the general.)
When Biden hits the mid-term slump AOC et al will claim its because he isn't being radical enough. People claim her proposal of Sanders at the Democratic convention was a mere procedural formality but it still gave her enough distance from Biden to be able to turn fire on him at a later date.
So we're already looking towards Biden's mid-terms are we? I think this is the first speculation on here I've seen about that. Which may in itself be telling.
BBC East Mids local news saying 400-odd per 100K in Nottingham. Did not say that was the 7 day number.
Followed up by saying there were 600-odd on one day last week. No there weren't. Not on the figures the dat.gov release.
I suspect they are not taking account that the number given each day is spread across several previous days depending on when test was done, delays in reporting and so on.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
This is a smart observation. I don't know what the "average life expectancy at death" is for the UK, but it's clearly going to be a number significantly greater than zero!
The number is still meaningful, though, if we think of the road not taken. "But for COVID" those who died would have had an average of 10 years more, say. Just like your hypothetical plane journey cost you 21 years of average life. One could also say that catching COVID costs (making up a number) 0.1 years of average life expectancy, compared with not catching it. This is a reasonable way to quantify the (non-economic) cost of binary events, comparing the consequence of the event against the consequences of the opposite, but I agree with you that it's quite counterintuitive.
--AS
Surely one's "average life expectancy at death" is precisely zero?
Funnily enough, no! (I'm taking "at" to mean "the instant before".) It depends what the average takes into account -- an omniscient being would know that death was about to happen and know that your average life expectancy was zero -- but an actuary's calculation assigns everyone a positive life expectancy even the instant before death. What a positive attitude!
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
Did you follow the link from the WSJ to the source papers? They have more detail.
Actuaries have their own mathematics, but my understanding would be that those who didn't die in a plane crash would actuarily gain life expectancy, albeit an infestessimal amount.
Foxy. Yes I did follow the link and read the paper. That's why I am questioning whether is is based on statistically flawed thinking. It seems to show that people who die, die sooner than people who live!
Re my plane crash example. I agree. Plane crash survivors and all survivors improve their life expectancy. That was part of my point.
If the numbers are students it might be worth not panicking about them. It won't grow exponentially, Freshers Flu is always worst in one week. Especially in Halls getting more than a hundred people moving from across the country (and maybe the world) into one building inevitably causes spread of viruses every single year. But everyone gets exposed at once. The idea it will grow exponentially is nonsense.
It might grow if it goes outside of students, but unless there's evidence of that we should not overreact to Freshers Flu.
Went into the office today for the first time since March to clear my desk as the company prepares to vacate offices. Drove straight into town and parked at StPancras. There was very little congestion.
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about. Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I agree. I think the economic impact of Covid will be much worse than many are assuming and has yet to hit.
If Sunak thinks that balancing the books in a major recession, possibly a depression, is the way to go, he’s a bigger fool than I take him for - and I am not, like @stodge, a fan.
Sunak's keynote speech this week was littered with the same old rubbish as a Johnson speech. I was more than a little disappointed.
Great piece David and ordinarily I would agree with you. The GOP also probably agree. So if you can't win fairly and refuse to lose, then cheat.
Manipulation of the Postal Service to stop ballots arriving on time Manipulation of ballot verification processes to stop ballots being valid Manipulation of polling stations to stop votes being cast at all Incitement of armed militia to "monitor" the vast queues by the remaining polling stations Legal challenge at local, state and federal level to stop votes being cast, votes being validated, votes being counted
They will literally have to drag him from office. The landslide may happen. But it won't matter. This is about the survival of Gilead America - it's too important for democracy to get in its way.
With due respect, your laundry list is IMHO alarmist and unrealistic
> Trumpsky's war against USPS totally ludicrous, as witnessed in his back-peddling re: Florida absentee voting; what the flap about postal voting is doing, is ensuring that millions of voters do NOT wait until the last minute before casting/returning their ballots - the BEST way to ensure their votes are received AND counted.
> This concern is also way overblown. There will be some problems, but most will stem from surge in postal voting resulting in practical, logical challenges due to new systems AND greater volume of work - NOT manipulation.
> In many localities concerns re: COVID have led to changes and reductions in polling; which have been mitigated by increased facilities & timeframes for early voting as well as by expanded postal voting.
> The armed militia thread is IMHO is WAY overblown, but we shall see.
> IF there are close results for President or other races, then yes will be plenty of legal action - which is the NORM for very close, contested elections, NOT the opening curtain for mass national chaos.
In other words, calm yourselves. Or as my old buddy used to say, go soak yer overheated head.
I will be delighted to be shown to be overblown. My list however was all based on things that have already happened.
The 2020 US Election is a work in progress, across a nation of hundreds of millions of voters in thousands of separate election jurisdictions ranging from Los Angeles County to Dixville Notch.
So plenty of stuff happens, including things you did NOT mention, like local election administrators and workers screwing up by misplacing ballots, or in one memorable instance disposing of military ballots (some voted for Trump) in their trash dumpster (this was in Wilkes-Barre, PA)
All this is NOT evidence that the whole election system is going to collapse, and we're all gonna die.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall NOT perish from the earth.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
This is a smart observation. I don't know what the "average life expectancy at death" is for the UK, but it's clearly going to be a number significantly greater than zero!
The number is still meaningful, though, if we think of the road not taken. "But for COVID" those who died would have had an average of 10 years more, say. Just like your hypothetical plane journey cost you 21 years of average life. One could also say that catching COVID costs (making up a number) 0.1 years of average life expectancy, compared with not catching it. This is a reasonable way to quantify the (non-economic) cost of binary events, comparing the consequence of the event against the consequences of the opposite, but I agree with you that it's quite counterintuitive.
--AS
Surely one's "average life expectancy at death" is precisely zero?
Funnily enough, no! (I'm taking "at" to mean "the instant before".) It depends what the average takes into account -- an omniscient being would know that death was about to happen and know that your average life expectancy was zero -- but an actuary's calculation assigns everyone a positive life expectancy even the instant before death. What a positive attitude!
--AS
As a Buddhist the life expectancy at death is, of course infinity. Or until Enlightenment depending on your tradition.
If the numbers are students it might be worth not panicking about them. It won't grow exponentially, Freshers Flu is always worst in one week. Especially in Halls getting more than a hundred people moving from across the country (and maybe the world) into one building inevitably causes spread of viruses every single year. But everyone gets exposed at once. The idea it will grow exponentially is nonsense.
It might grow if it goes outside of students, but unless there's evidence of that we should not overreact to Freshers Flu.
Excellent post.
I fear it is too late though and the panic has begun.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Of course you should bother, just think of the kudos you'll get if you turn out to be right.
Personally I just get overloaded by data with american elections so just go on my gut, which is unhelpful, but people seem to be able to use the data to make any argument anyway.
The one about anecdotes is interesting though, because I had noted that John Oliver made a crack about Biden's get out the vote operation on his show on Sunday. Might mean nothing, he certainly is not impartial and I get the impression no fan of Biden, but I don't discount the possibility things might still trip up.
As for your 2, I presume David feels the state polls are the ones which are more likely to be bogus.
Thanks for that. My gut (biased, I know) says that Biden is going to trip up in three areas (1) white suburban voters who went it gets to the secrecy of the ballot box go with Trump but daren't advertise it to their neighbours for social harm (2) Hispanics who feel like they have been neglected by the Democrats and that BLM does not apply to them (3) ironically, Black voters, a small but enough chunk (mainly younger) who vote Republican combined with lower turnout in urban areas that have been impacted by the increased crime wave.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Of course you should bother, just think of the kudos you'll get if you turn out to be right.
Personally I just get overloaded by data with american elections so just go on my gut, which is unhelpful, but people seem to be able to use the data to make any argument anyway.
The one about anecdotes is interesting though, because I had noted that John Oliver made a crack about Biden's get out the vote operation on his show on Sunday. Might mean nothing, he certainly is not impartial and I get the impression no fan of Biden, but I don't discount the possibility things might still trip up.
As for your 2, I presume David feels the state polls are the ones which are more likely to be bogus.
Thanks for that. My gut (biased, I know) says that Biden is going to trip up in three areas (1) white suburban voters who went it gets to the secrecy of the ballot box go with Trump but daren't advertise it to their neighbours for social harm (2) Hispanics who feel like they have been neglected by the Democrats and that BLM does not apply to them (3) ironically, Black voters, a small but enough chunk (mainly younger) who vote Republican combined with lower turnout in urban areas that have been impacted by the increased crime wave.
On (3), an interesting article - not much enthusiasm here by the sounds of it:
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
You are aware that the Maine poll is just for ME-02?
I would be interested in seeing more about the link between registrations and vote share - is there a source for this data? One thing is for sure, if Trump wins (which I highly doubt) then you have PB tipster of the year nailed on.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
You are aware that the Maine poll is just for ME-02?
Yes, I know, I saw the typo but then was reckoned everyone would work it out so decided not to bother correcting
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
Did you follow the link from the WSJ to the source papers? They have more detail.
Actuaries have their own mathematics, but my understanding would be that those who didn't die in a plane crash would actuarily gain life expectancy, albeit an infestessimal amount.
Foxy. Yes I did follow the link and read the paper. That's why I am questioning whether is is based on statistically flawed thinking. It seems to show that people who die, die sooner than people who live!
Re my plane crash example. I agree. Plane crash survivors and all survivors improve their life expectancy. That was part of my point.
I don't think you are correct. The survivors life expectancy is unchanged (at least it certainly isn't increased) as it is a calculation based upon everyone and everyone eventually dies. The person who dies however has reduced his personal life expectancy (zero) from what it was the day before.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Of course you should bother, just think of the kudos you'll get if you turn out to be right.
Personally I just get overloaded by data with american elections so just go on my gut, which is unhelpful, but people seem to be able to use the data to make any argument anyway.
The one about anecdotes is interesting though, because I had noted that John Oliver made a crack about Biden's get out the vote operation on his show on Sunday. Might mean nothing, he certainly is not impartial and I get the impression no fan of Biden, but I don't discount the possibility things might still trip up.
As for your 2, I presume David feels the state polls are the ones which are more likely to be bogus.
Thanks for that. My gut (biased, I know) says that Biden is going to trip up in three areas (1) white suburban voters who went it gets to the secrecy of the ballot box go with Trump but daren't advertise it to their neighbours for social harm (2) Hispanics who feel like they have been neglected by the Democrats and that BLM does not apply to them (3) ironically, Black voters, a small but enough chunk (mainly younger) who vote Republican combined with lower turnout in urban areas that have been impacted by the increased crime wave.
My gut is that those three issues are not sufficient to overcome a gap that has widened to about eight points.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
Did you follow the link from the WSJ to the source papers? They have more detail.
Actuaries have their own mathematics, but my understanding would be that those who didn't die in a plane crash would actuarily gain life expectancy, albeit an infestessimal amount.
Foxy. Yes I did follow the link and read the paper. That's why I am questioning whether is is based on statistically flawed thinking. It seems to show that people who die, die sooner than people who live!
Re my plane crash example. I agree. Plane crash survivors and all survivors improve their life expectancy. That was part of my point.
I don't think you are correct. The survivors life expectancy is unchanged (at least it certainly isn't increased) as it is a calculation based upon everyone and everyone eventually dies. The person who dies however has reduced his personal life expectancy (zero) from what it was the day before.
Every day you don't die, doesn't your total life expectancy (marginally) go up?
BBC East Mids local news saying 400-odd per 100K in Nottingham. Did not say that was the 7 day number.
Followed up by saying there were 600-odd on one day last week. No there weren't. Not on the figures the dat.gov release.
I suspect they are not taking account that the number given each day is spread across several previous days depending on when test was done, delays in reporting and so on.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
Did you follow the link from the WSJ to the source papers? They have more detail.
Actuaries have their own mathematics, but my understanding would be that those who didn't die in a plane crash would actuarily gain life expectancy, albeit an infestessimal amount.
Foxy. Yes I did follow the link and read the paper. That's why I am questioning whether is is based on statistically flawed thinking. It seems to show that people who die, die sooner than people who live!
Re my plane crash example. I agree. Plane crash survivors and all survivors improve their life expectancy. That was part of my point.
I don't think you are correct. The survivors life expectancy is unchanged (at least it certainly isn't increased) as it is a calculation based upon everyone and everyone eventually dies. The person who dies however has reduced his personal life expectancy (zero) from what it was the day before.
Every day you don't die, doesn't your total life expectancy (marginally) go up?
Yes true, but I don't think that was the point being made. If it was I have just made 2 pointless posts 😮
If the numbers are students it might be worth not panicking about them. It won't grow exponentially, Freshers Flu is always worst in one week. Especially in Halls getting more than a hundred people moving from across the country (and maybe the world) into one building inevitably causes spread of viruses every single year. But everyone gets exposed at once. The idea it will grow exponentially is nonsense.
It might grow if it goes outside of students, but unless there's evidence of that we should not overreact to Freshers Flu.
There is no empirical evidence, but that feels like what happened up here. We had a pretty high rate to start with. Freshers Week at Northumbria happened. Spread Covid. Then they were out and about in all the City centre bars and wandering around town for a week and a half before anyone knew. And the rates kept climbing. I don't buy this "keep it on campus" bit. There is no campus. And what there is is slap bang in the city centre. And Newcastle University just opened.
Went into the office today for the first time since March to clear my desk as the company prepares to vacate offices. Drove straight into town and parked at StPancras. There was very little congestion.
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about. Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I agree. I think the economic impact of Covid will be much worse than many are assuming and has yet to hit.
If Sunak thinks that balancing the books in a major recession, possibly a depression, is the way to go, he’s a bigger fool than I take him for - and I am not, like @stodge, a fan.
Sunak's keynote speech this week was littered with the same old rubbish as a Johnson speech. I was more than a little disappointed.
They were probably written, or at least revised, by the same person/people.
FPT Philip_Thompson said: 'If the Tories increase a deficit during a period of growth then that would be bad. Can you name a year when that happened? '
How about 1973 /1974? The economy was racing along under Barber at well over 5% growth per annum yet the Budget Deficit was 4% - much higher than managed by Brown pre- 2007.
FPT Philip_Thompson said: 'If the Tories increase a deficit during a period of growth then that would be bad. Can you name a year when that happened? '
How about 1973 /1974? The economy was racing along under Barber at well over 5% growth per annum yet the Budget Deficit was 4% - much higher than managed by Brown pre- 2007.
So pre-Thatcherism and nearly a decade before I was born?
Yes there may have been a mistake then. Pre-Thatcherism economics wasn't the best. But if that's the most recent you've got then it seems the Tories have learnt from that mistake and haven't repeated it even once in my lifetime.
F*ck it, I wasn't going to bother but I'll do a charge of the Light Brigade and give a couple of reasons why this might not be the slam dunk everything think it is:
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Of course you should bother, just think of the kudos you'll get if you turn out to be right.
Personally I just get overloaded by data with american elections so just go on my gut, which is unhelpful, but people seem to be able to use the data to make any argument anyway.
The one about anecdotes is interesting though, because I had noted that John Oliver made a crack about Biden's get out the vote operation on his show on Sunday. Might mean nothing, he certainly is not impartial and I get the impression no fan of Biden, but I don't discount the possibility things might still trip up.
As for your 2, I presume David feels the state polls are the ones which are more likely to be bogus.
I think the +14 / +16 are outliers, or at least are top-side MoE. The poll averages are roughly Biden +8 and that's what the state polls are pointing to. But +8 *is* a landslide in Electoral College terms. If Georgia is in the balance, then it's not close.
(FWIW, I agree that Nevada is doing it's own thing and that's one that Biden should be wary of but at the end of the day, if it is doing its own thing then by definition it's not indicative.
BBC East Mids local news saying 400-odd per 100K in Nottingham. Did not say that was the 7 day number.
Followed up by saying there were 600-odd on one day last week. No there weren't. Not on the figures the dat.gov release.
I suspect they are not taking account that the number given each day is spread across several previous days depending on when test was done, delays in reporting and so on.
Top 20 in the absolute numbers - by specimen date
I see shutting the pubs completely in Bolton causing everyone to drink in Wigan has had a predictable result. Levelling up achieved!
I suspect being a branded a one-term loser will do Trump's health more harm than Covid-19 will.
What happens after a Biden landslide though? Will Trump's supporters simply refuse to believe the result and foster another "stabbed in the back" myth or will the spell finally be broken? Does the GOP establishment take back control of the party or does Trumpism simply regroup under a more competent leader?
Simply not being Trump will only get Biden so far. What happens when the realisation dawns that America's problems haven't gone away and the country is as divided as ever? Will his health hold up for four years? I expect once the honeymoon period ends AOC will turn on the Democratic establishment pretty quickly.
AOC isn't particularly influential: IIRC her and her PAC endorsed 17 candidates for Congress in the Primaries this year, and only three of them won. (And those three were in districts where they are unlikely to win in the general.)
When Biden hits the mid-term slump AOC et al will claim its because he isn't being radical enough. People claim her proposal of Sanders at the Democratic convention was a mere procedural formality but it still gave her enough distance from Biden to be able to turn fire on him at a later date.
So we're already looking towards Biden's mid-terms are we? I think this is the first speculation on here I've seen about that. Which may in itself be telling.
IIRC there have been a few mentions of 2020 on here but not many.
Re: the dreaded (or hoped for) mid-term slump for US presidents and their parties, note several factors:
> the size (or not) of the president's victory, or rather the extent of his coattails, and consequent size (or lack thereof) of seat margins in both houses of Congress.
> new OR ongoing trends that impact congressional-presidential relationship and public perceptions.
> in the case of 2020, impact of reapportionment and redistricting upon US House allocations and districting; note that in number of states (for example Texas) changing (or maintaining) party control of one or more legislative chambers can have MAJOR impact on 2020 congressional districts.
The Trump +8 in ME CD2 is based on a sample size of just 234.
That poll has caused 538 to move ME CD2 back to Trump.
But surely the sample size is so small the poll should be almost completely ignored.
That’s poor from 538 to include such a rubbish poll. Though presumably they give it very little weight.
I remember raising this point re the small sample size of US polls and being told that it wasn't the size that was important (ahem) but the methodology. So why is this one different?
Comments
First job: save American democracy.
Premium Charges
My own tip for the landslide, Biden to get 58 - 61% of vote @ 20/1 or 61%+ @ 31/1.
He just polled 57% so combined that's about 13/1 for something well within margin of error.
7am-9pm - watch the weather in a petrified state, hoping your voters will turn out, worrying at the number of scowls you get whilst telling, trying to keep your activists from fretting as much as you are.
9pm-10pm - eat whilst not looking at the clock every. bloody. minute - until the exit poll
11pm-onwards - at the count. Ours are always terminally slow, despite pretty much knowing the result after exit poll and first few ballot boxes have been opened
3am - not quite understanding why the count still hasn't finished
4am - not quite understanding why, when the counting has clearly finished, there hasn't been a declaration
4.30am - rush to declaration spot, after it becomes obvious all local declarations will be happening at once
5am - 8am. Home. After celebratory handshakes. Blissful period where you're waiting to fall asleep whilst the final few results come in. Decide you're going to wait to x constituency to be declared. Have a quick celebratory tipple.
8.01am. Fall asleep after tipple finished, 3 minutes before x constituency is declared
Midday. Wake up to find txts and missed calls from everyone involved in the campaign, and everyone who wasn't involved but wants to make you think they were, so messages congrats too.
That West Wing episode where Josh always goes a bit loopy on election day is too close for comfort, for me.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1313584866932527105
I get that the polls aren't close. But the novelty of all this absentee balloting makes me worry.
I have more respect for people doing what they think is right during a crisis, even if I disagree, than someone who is too petrified to make any decisions at all until they have Hindsight.
That poll has caused 538 to move ME CD2 back to Trump.
But surely the sample size is so small the poll should be almost completely ignored.
1. Voter registration: If you look at the 4 states that release the data (PA, MI, AZ and NC), the Republicans have outperformed the Democrats on registration numbers.
If you take PA (at least), and look at the regression analysis at a county level, there is a very strong correlation between changes in voter registration numbers and share of vote. That regression analysis suggests the PA polls showing Biden winning easily are wrong. Yes, it would mean a massive polling error if Trump wins. But there has to be an even more massive overturning of the rule that changes in voter registration numbers match voting trends pretty well.
2. The data is not marrying up. David mentions some of the state polls that maybe cast a slight doubt on his case for a landslide but. put bluntly, the two sets of data don't match. If Biden is winning +14/+16 at a national level, then he shouldn't be up +1 in AZ or +3 in NC or behind 8 in Maine (the last one is interesting because Mainers don't generally give a f*ck what anyone thinks of them). I see today Gideon's lead in the Senate is now down to +1. Given what we have been told about the decline in ticket splitting, she should be romping home.
3. The anecdotes on the ground are not marrying up. There have been two articles in the last 72 hours suggesting the Democrats are increasingly worried about NV. Now maybe NV is an unique case but there have also been articles suggesting local Democrats are also not happy with how things are being run in FL and, to a degree, in WI. Again, you can talk about "they are being cautious" but that is not sounding like a campaign that is optimistic.
4. The flaws in the polling data. We have plenty of people who use data day to day on this site and do models so they will understand the principle of "garbage in, garbage out". Polling companies are in a worst state now than they were four years ago in terms of margins, staff retention, morale, you name it. There are no accepted standards for American polling.
I accept 3 and 4 are more theoretical but 1 has a fair amount to back it and, for 2, the polls cannot be reconciled - some must be wrong
Kings cross was dead. A dozen or so people about.
Small independent businesses, closed.
I would be very surprised if were not on the cusp of major economic problems.
I’ve been thinking about that statistic and study that you quoted recently which appeared to show that people who die of coronavirus on average reduce their actuarially expected lifespan by 10 years. Does this actually tell us anything meaningful? Surely everyone who actually dies, dies earlier than their actuarial calculation would have predicted?
Say, before I catch an aeroplane, I am 59 years old, (which I happen to be), and I have an actuarial life expectancy of say 80, (which perhaps I do have; fingers crossed), and the plane crashes and I die. Then I have reduced my actuarial life expectancy by 21 years. Why? Because the plane I was on crashed. Everyone else who boarded a plane that day that didn’t crash has maintained their actuarial life expectancy – or increased it minimally. My life expectancy crashed because my plane crashed. The life expectancy of people who die of coronavirus crashes because they are the people who caught and died of coronavirus.
I suspect I’m missing something here. But it seems to me that most of the actuarial adjustment comes from the fact that the dead people being analysed were people that - died!
To me there seems to have been a misstep taken in this study somewhere between prior probability and known outcome. Bayes and his Bombs may or may not be relevant to my thinking? I’m not a statistician but I’m sure there are other on this blog can determine if I am onto something - or quite possibly talking bunkum!
It doesn't really matter whether it's called Risk Segmentation, Focused Protection, A Shield of Maximum Safekeeping, or A Potion of Wishful Security, it's still magical thinking.
Certainly we should try very hard to protect the vulnerable. We didn't do that so well in the first wave, nor did a number of other countries. But part of that protection lies in reducing virus prevalence in the population as a whole.
--AS
Personally I just get overloaded by data with american elections so just go on my gut, which is unhelpful, but people seem to be able to use the data to make any argument anyway.
The one about anecdotes is interesting though, because I had noted that John Oliver made a crack about Biden's get out the vote operation on his show on Sunday. Might mean nothing, he certainly is not impartial and I get the impression no fan of Biden, but I don't discount the possibility things might still trip up.
As for your 2, I presume David feels the state polls are the ones which are more likely to be bogus.
The data shows 235 cases for a city of 300K people.
Am I missing something?
Actuaries have their own mathematics, but my understanding would be that those who didn't die in a plane crash would actuarily gain life expectancy, albeit an infestessimal amount.
Have you noticed Nottingham is getting more cases than the rest of Nottinghamshire put together ?
They are back pedalling at a furious rate to distance themselves from the ancien regime.
If Sunak thinks that balancing the books in a major recession, possibly a depression, is the way to go, he’s a bigger fool than I take him for - and I am not, like @stodge, a fan.
"I can"
"OK, let me start..."
https://twitter.com/avds/status/1313504873082695680
They are not official but give you a good idea of what is happening in England.
The 'Top 160' embedded table shows Nottingham at 6 on 456. This is 456 cases per 100,000 people taken over the last 7 days, which appears to be the 'gold standard' measure in this respect.
https://twitter.com/avds updates his analysis daily and its really good!
It would also be good to know which universities are doing widespread testing on their students and which aren't.
https://twitter.com/avds/status/1313501650691198979/photo/1
Not perfect, but what were the alternatives? Sitting on my sofa playing X box in his underpants for a year, only to find covid is still around? It is not a good year for a gap year with no work or travel.
Still not sure why Warrington but not Manchester has been chosen to be under the same restrictions as Liverpool and Newcastle, besides its proximity to Liverpool. #31 in that list, below the whole of Greater Manchester, Wigan etc.
He's overseeing Boris Johnson's housing policy, which is what created the GFC in the first place and he was busy shorting housing bonds at the time, profiting off of millions losing their jobs
The number is still meaningful, though, if we think of the road not taken. "But for COVID" those who died would have had an average of 10 years more, say. Just like your hypothetical plane journey cost you 21 years of average life. One could also say that catching COVID costs (making up a number) 0.1 years of average life expectancy, compared with not catching it. This is a reasonable way to quantify the (non-economic) cost of binary events, comparing the consequence of the event against the consequences of the opposite, but I agree with you that it's quite counterintuitive.
--AS
Whole cities could be being lockdown because of an outbreak that is mainly on campus.
I think this is the first speculation on here I've seen about that.
Which may in itself be telling.
BBC East Mids local news saying 400-odd per 100K in Nottingham. Did not say that was the 7 day number.
Followed up by saying there were 600-odd on one day last week. No there weren't. Not on the figures the dat.gov release.
I suspect they are not taking account that the number given each day is spread across several previous days depending on when test was done, delays in reporting and so on.
--AS
Re my plane crash example. I agree. Plane crash survivors and all survivors improve their life expectancy. That was part of my point.
It might grow if it goes outside of students, but unless there's evidence of that we should not overreact to Freshers Flu.
So plenty of stuff happens, including things you did NOT mention, like local election administrators and workers screwing up by misplacing ballots, or in one memorable instance disposing of military ballots (some voted for Trump) in their trash dumpster (this was in Wilkes-Barre, PA)
All this is NOT evidence that the whole election system is going to collapse, and we're all gonna die.
Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall NOT perish from the earth.
Because Abe Lincoln did NOT die in vain.
Or until Enlightenment depending on your tradition.
I fear it is too late though and the panic has begun.
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-joe-biden-police-dc121351b80fa6b0d30df0671f266634
I would be interested in seeing more about the link between registrations and vote share - is there a source for this data? One thing is for sure, if Trump wins (which I highly doubt) then you have PB tipster of the year nailed on.
How do premium charges work? I'm on the basic 2% plan but ahead on my winnings.
everyone eventually dies. The person who dies however has reduced his personal life expectancy (zero) from what it was the day before.
We had a pretty high rate to start with.
Freshers Week at Northumbria happened. Spread Covid. Then they were out and about in all the City centre bars and wandering around town for a week and a half before anyone knew.
And the rates kept climbing.
I don't buy this "keep it on campus" bit. There is no campus. And what there is is slap bang in the city centre.
And Newcastle University just opened.
Philip_Thompson said:
'If the Tories increase a deficit during a period of growth then that would be bad. Can you name a year when that happened? '
How about 1973 /1974? The economy was racing along under Barber at well over 5% growth per annum yet the Budget Deficit was 4% - much higher than managed by Brown pre- 2007.
Yes there may have been a mistake then. Pre-Thatcherism economics wasn't the best. But if that's the most recent you've got then it seems the Tories have learnt from that mistake and haven't repeated it even once in my lifetime.
(FWIW, I agree that Nevada is doing it's own thing and that's one that Biden should be wary of but at the end of the day, if it is doing its own thing then by definition it's not indicative.
Levelling up achieved!
https://twitter.com/CNBCnow/status/1313556766022610944
Re: the dreaded (or hoped for) mid-term slump for US presidents and their parties, note several factors:
> the size (or not) of the president's victory, or rather the extent of his coattails, and consequent size (or lack thereof) of seat margins in both houses of Congress.
> new OR ongoing trends that impact congressional-presidential relationship and public perceptions.
> in the case of 2020, impact of reapportionment and redistricting upon US House allocations and districting; note that in number of states (for example Texas) changing (or maintaining) party control of one or more legislative chambers can have MAJOR impact on 2020 congressional districts.
Genuine question.
Loot as quickly and as extensively as possible before you are ousted.